25 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,930 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 274,322 times 368 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,384 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
Swartz v. KPMG LLP
476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 2,916 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,762 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"
Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.
552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 381 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction"
Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt
148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 513 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "patentee [does] not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum solely by informing a party who happens to be located there of suspected infringement," as "[grounding personal jurisdiction on such contacts alone would not comport with principles of fairness."
Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle
340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 383 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding there was specific jurisdiction over the defendant-patentee who hired a lawyer in the forum state, made phone calls into the state regarding the subject matter of the technology covered by the patent, and whose employees visited the plaintiff-company's facility in the forum state
Akro Corp. v. Luker
45 F.3d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 461 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that notice letters were directed to the allegedly infringing entity in Ohio, not to the entity’s lawyer in North Carolina
Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Technology Ltd.
566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 298 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant's attendance at three scientific conferences/trade shows in the forum state insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 355,101 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 160,697 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,334 times 1039 Legal Analyses
Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,111 times 470 Legal Analyses
Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,977 times 988 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,471 times 2255 Legal Analyses
Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Sandisk Corporation v. Round Rock Research LLC

25 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”

Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"

Holding that "letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction"

Holding that a "patentee [does] not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum solely by informing a party who happens to be located there of suspected infringement," as "[grounding personal jurisdiction on such contacts alone would not comport with principles of fairness."

Holding there was specific jurisdiction over the defendant-patentee who hired a lawyer in the forum state, made phone calls into the state regarding the subject matter of the technology covered by the patent, and whose employees visited the plaintiff-company's facility in the forum state

Holding that notice letters were directed to the allegedly infringing entity in Ohio, not to the entity’s lawyer in North Carolina

Holding defendant's attendance at three scientific conferences/trade shows in the forum state insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."